June 26, 2008

In less than 2 hours, the Supreme Court will finally tell us what the Second Amendment means. The best place to monitor the news is the SCOTUSblog live-blog. I won't be here to comment on the case until almost noon, so please start the conversation without me.

I think the case is going to be decided by duel. Scalia shoots Breyer in the small intestine; Stevens strafes at bob-and-weave Alito and cartwheeling Roberts; Thomas, refusing to carry a firearm out of fear of racial stereotyping, hides behind Kennedy, peeking over his shoulder to spy Ginsburg raising her robes and drawing a Dillinger from her garter; Kennedy impales Souter in the buttocks with a harpoon gun as the bachelor tries to flee; and Ginsburg plants a shot between Kennedy's eyes, leaving Thomas, Alito, and Roberts facing off against Stevens and Ginsburg. Thomas, frozen by the sight of Ginsburg's garters, barely notices as Alito and Roberts unsheath glimmering samurai swords and Scalia swaggers over from where Breyer is noisily complaining.

Obama has said he wants to eliminate the cap of social security for those making over $250k. To day in the Wall Street Journal, one of his advisors wrote in to comment that Obama has not proposed a tax increase on payroll earnings over $250k, he has only proposed extending solvency and asking those making over $250k to pay their fair share.

I kid you not. They actually say this stuff with a straight face.

It reminds me of Obama's argument that he doesn't need public financing because his private financing is all being raised from the public anyway. This stuff sounds writings from Pravda...

"I support putting violent criminals behind bars, but we have too many violent criminals behind bars right now."

That's not a contradiction, nor is it inconsistent. Hypothetically, you might support putting away violent criminals, but we might have a system that keeps violent criminals in prison long after they have already been rehabilitated because of manadatory minimum sentences that rob judges of the discretion to do justice. So you might support increases in law enforcement funding, but also support repealing certain sentencing laws to provide judges with more discretion and permit greater opportunities for parole.

One stands in amazement at the notion of US judges and politicians who view the Constitution as an impediment to their task of remaking the country in the image of, say, Cuba. Or maybe one of those cute little western European socialist vacation spots. "Liberal" my butt...

Dude, you should join the Obama campaign, you are exactly right. Obama's true policy preference is liberal - i.e., to be easier on criminals. However, he wants his statements to make it seem like he is tough on criminals. So he makes statements that he wants to be tough, but the policy part is just the opposite. He is a classic Orwellian lefty.

He might say something like: "America is the freeist place in the world and we highly value this freedom, which is why we need policies that make everyone equally as free as the other."

Where is the contradiction in this? Am I missing something? Isn't this McCain's position?

You are a genius, you should sign up.

McCain's position is to open the Continental shelf to drilling. Drilling more is the obvious result of that. IN contrast, Obama doesn't support opening new lands to drilling, but supports more drilling on the current lands. The result of that is the status quo, i.e., no more drilling.

McCain's position is to open the Continental shelf to drilling. Drilling more is the obvious result of that. IN contrast, Obama doesn't support opening new lands to drilling, but supports more drilling on the current lands. The result of that is the status quo, i.e., no more drilling.

Yes, I know that. But your verbal formulation works to describe either position, because it depends on where you think drilling should take place. That's a real and legitimate difference. So what's your criticism?

Four justices don't think you have a right plainly enumerated in the constitution. Five think it's unconstitutionally cruel to execute people who rape children. It's time for voter ratification of SC justices.

The law does not matter, the result is what matters. Liberals are accused of having that view, but I think it is just as prevalent view among many who call themselves conservative.

Please, the ruling in Heller is backed by an enumerated Constitutional right. The moronic ruling in the child-rapist/death penalty case was based on the personal feelings of one Justice who twisted logic so badly he is probably in traction this morning.

What is the dissent talking about. How can you have any amount of freedom without having the right to defend yourself. It makes no sense at all, yet the liberals on the Court seem to think otherwise. They must think that the bill of rights was not about freedom?????

Once again, the liberals prefer to grant rights to criminals and terrorists rather than to law abiding Americans. They are nuts.

My kneejerk is that I am greatly pleased about the decision. I look forward to reading the opinion written by Scalia as well as the dissents - looks like Stevens and Breyer each wrote one.

Next up is the much messier case of Chicago handgun ban and other places. DC was a bit cleaner since it isn't a city within a state, it is a federal entity.

But this decision should help killing more handgun bans. Which personally, I think is great seeing that the criminals don't care about the existing laws anyway, as the handgun murder rates in DC and Chicago show.

I suggest moving to WA state where you dont even need a concealed carry permit if you wear your hogleg openly in a holster. Its a great way to drive people from the Puget sound area absolutely bonkers, BTW. Have YOU pissed off your liberal today?

I suggest moving to WA state where you dont even need a concealed carry permit if you wear your hogleg openly in a holster. Its a great way to drive people from the Puget sound area absolutely bonkers, BTW. Have YOU pissed off your liberal today?

The downside of open carry is that the lowlifes know you have a gun. I prefer surprising them.

A party-line vote; the Stevens dissent follows the "logic" of the Bogus brief and the strained interpretation of the "Professors of Linguistics;" he cites the ex parte decision in Miller and even the unanswered government's brief -- I feel ill.

To prevent getting more SC justices like Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter -- I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for McCain.

I do find more consistency in the majority here, who affirmed an enumerated right while often questioning rights found in emminations and implications. The dissent I think is on much shakier grounds, ignoring enumerated rights, while finding unenumerated ones.

Please, the ruling in Heller is backed by an enumerated Constitutional right. The moronic ruling in the child-rapist/death penalty case was based on the personal feelings of one Justice who twisted logic so badly he is probably in traction this morning.

Amazing that it was a 5-4 decision. It's incredible how close we are to liberals being able to take away our god given right to self defense. At least now I won't have to get Obama's permission to defend my kids if a criminal breaks into my house with the intent to kill.

We all know that the decision was based on personal opinion held by each Judge. Further, the decision always comes first, and then the appropriate legal/constitution cites and opinion comes next. The opinions just there for show.

Note: I think Scalia and Thomas actually read the constitution and leave their political feeling out most of the time. But Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, etc. are results driven judges. And with Grandma O'Conner it was just a matter of how she felt that day.

The law does not matter, the result is what matters. Liberals are accused of having that view, but I think it is just as prevalent view among many who call themselves conservative.

. . . by saying that conservatives would support the Heller decision based simply on the result versus the law much like liberal death penalty opponents support the child rapist/death penalty decision based on the anti-death penalty result and not the law.

Maybe I presumed too much by specifying these two specific decisions, but it appeared to me that they are what you were referring to since they happened so close together.

Yeah, but Brown v. Board Ed. looks a lot like result oriented jurisprudence to me. Especially when you consider the anectdote about the Chief Justice visiting another justice in the hospital and imploring him to make it a unanimous decision.

Happy shooting all! (for what it's worth, without having read the opinions, I think that the majority got it right...however, I also believe that the end result is that your average Joe D.C. citizen now will be living in a more dangerous city...)

Question re Sloan's weak "contradiction" rants today...why are neo-cons so afraid of nuanced thought? Do you folks really believe that everything is black and white? Just wondering.

It was. That doesn't mean it was wrong, though - sometimes the right thing is done for the wrong reason.

Brown was driven by a commendable and perfectly understandable desire to tear the heart out of pernicious evil. But a pernicious evil does not by its own force violate the Constitution, and where the Constitution says nothing, the courts have no legitimate power.

Nevertheless, the Fourteenth Amendment could not be clearer in its command: it banishes racial discrimination from the realm of state government. Brown therefore came out the right way, even if it rests on a morally commendable but legally dubious foundation.

I'm an ardent supporter of the second amendment, but I think that this morning's decision will actually do more harm than good.

If this decision had gone the other way, there would have been a backlash against it that would have driven many people to vote against Obama -- hardline conservatives, blue-dog democrats, etc. -- that would otherwise not even bother voting for McCain. The second amendment is a very strong motivational issue.

The decision today instead defuses the issue.

This, coupled with Obama's recent promise to force all employers to give all employees an additional seven paid sick days off (a federal version of Ohio's impending "Healthy Families Act") should be enough to wrap up Obama's victory.

My advice for gun owners: Slather your guns in cosmolene and bury them in aluminum tubes. Once Obama gets in there, with a Democratic house and a filibuster-proof Democratic senate, and appoints a couple of replacement SC justices, door-to-door confiscation won't be far behind.

Happy shooting all! (for what it's worth, without having read the opinions, I think that the majority got it right...however, I also believe that the end result is that your average Joe D.C. citizen now will be living in a more dangerous city...)

Question re Sloan's weak "contradiction" rants today...why are neo-cons so afraid of nuanced thought? Do you folks really believe that everything is black and white? Just wondering.I don't think Sloan is a neo-con. Are you sure you know what that means? Or are you just using it like most people, as a synonym for "bad"? Additionally, saying contradictory things is not nuanced thought. It's usually a sign of not having a clear understanding of one's underlying principles.

I believe that Joe DC will believe he's living in a more dangerous city, and I'm sure the ward-heelers will tell him he's living in a more dangerous city. But I seriously doubt that will actually be the result of the decision.

Just like the child rape case yesterday, I don't see anyway back for the minority in this case. Really can't see a court deciding in 2014 that the 2nd amendment means something different than what was decided today. I can see deciding that magazine capacities are not a 2nd A. infringement, or banning semi-auto handguns (talk about the wild wild west -- imagine everyone carying revolvers), but we're done banning outright.

Simon - Obviously arguing that the 14th A. does not mean no segregation sounds silly now, but in 1954... I guess we all have evolved senses of decency now :-)

I love these kinds of decisions as debate topics because you really get to see the tension between democracy and the Constitution.

It's fine by me if you want to own a gun. The people who want to ban all guns are just as silly as the people who think its okay to own a machine gun...both are ridiculous positions to me.

To me the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a gun for the necessity of a well regulated militia. I get that idea from actually READING the amendment. Therefore keep your gun for the purpose of protecting your community and property, as a militia would, but expect the ownership to be somewhat regulated.

Surely you're joking, Mr. Pastafarian! Today's decision is the right side winning by the skin of our teeth! Look, just for one proximate, anecdotal example, at FLS above saying "I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for McCain lest we get any more justices like the minority".

To me the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a gun for the necessity of a well regulated militia. I get that idea from actually READING the amendment.

Good point: I believe in disarming women (they're ruled by their hormones, duh) and the middle-aged (male menopause). Fortunately, our wise forebears limited militia membership to men between 17 and 45.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Being actually one of those middle aged men above the age of 45, I would retort that the reduction in male hormones reduces our likelihood of misusing our guns in anger.

And, no, male menopause is not like female menopause with the associated hot flashes and mood swings. Rather, it is (at least for me) a gradual reduction in the ability of women to get what they want from us through flaunting their sexuality.

It looks to me like the price Scalia paid for a unified majority was the complete punting away of the level-of-scrutiny issue. (I agree with Breyer this far: I wish they'd faced that issue squarely, and I'm skeptical of the claim that the DC ban would fail anything beyond rational-basis review.)

Currently, I am enjoying Scalia's smack down of Breyer's proposed judge-empowering “interestbalancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdensa protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.”

His response is: "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration ofthe right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all."

The people who want to ban all guns are just as silly as the people who think its okay to own a machine gun...both are ridiculous positions to me.

Why is it ridiculous to own a machine gun? (And you can own one if you go through the hoops and qualify.) I don't see the need for one, but if a law-abiding, non-crazy citizen wants to own one I certainly don't see it as a ridiculous position. In fact, I would love it if he or she would let me fire it sometime at the range.

What would prevent this decision from being reversed by a court with one more liberal justice?

Don't they reverse themselves all the time?

An earlier post was concerned with the constitutionality of the death penalty, for example -- apparently a few days ago it was constitutional to execute a rapist, and now suddenly it isn't. And I'm sure there have been cases concerning the death penalty where one supreme court ruling contradicted and undid an earlier one -- wasn't there a case of that a few years ago with the execution of the mentally disabled?

As Justice Kennedy would say, our attitudes are continuously evolving, after all. I'm sure that within a few years we'll drop that vestigial tail, come down out of the trees, and ban all private ownership of firearms.

I might be wrong about this, but I believe that "stare decisis" is only invoked in situations where it's used to justify voting for something that a justice wants to vote for anyway, based on his/her political opinion. If they want to overturn something, they'll say "stare who"?

So the Obamanation will either ban all private ownership of firearms, or we'll just ban handguns (because they're so easily concealable), bolt-action and falling-block rifles (because they can be fitted with a scope and used for long-range assassinations), semiautomatics (too often used in massacres)...leaving us with exposed-hammer double-barrel shotguns and black powder muskets.

That is, slightly less well-armed than the founding fathers themselves.

And once the Obamanation has the rabble disarmed, I'm sure that their next policies (the new ultra-progressive 100% income tax, slave reparations, and compulsory service in the Peace Corps (with 20 year hitches)) will be received by said rabble with much less resistance.

re former law student and Bruce Hayden's commentary re male menopause. It seems that many baby boomer males have thrown away their right to own a gun for the thrill of riding a Harley. I suspect far more men in the boomer category are killed in motorcycle mishaps than are killed by guns. The obvious conclusion: restrict the sales of harleys. (there is some fascinating epi research that correlates male fatalities with increasing age, and increasing cc's of motorcycle engine displacement)

The 14th amendment only requires equality under the law not desegregation. Plessy v. Ferguson should not have been overturned. The US congress could have outlawed segregation anytime it wished. It did so in 1964.

Sadly, its only when we get 5 activist conservative judges that liberals will agree to reduce to SCOUTS to its proper. constitutional role.

I agree with Jonathan Turley's comments today that DC made a foolhardy decision by petitioning for cert in this case. Its handgun ban was extreme. It had to make some extreme arguments to uphold its law.

How extreme those arguments were can be seen by reading the dissents.

The four "liberal" justices agreed with both Stevens and Breyer's somewhat different analytical approach. The only consistency was the result they desired.

I predict this case will be studied not only for the result, but also for the judicial process that led to these opinions.

Sorry, I must have missed the McCain quote or legislative action that indicates that he favors a return to slavery. Could you provide a link?

On the other hand, there's a whole host of evidence out there that Obama opposes the right to keep and bear arms -- some of it's actually linked to in this thread.

And we're about to give Obama more power (Democratic house, Democratic senate) than any Democratic president since Jimmy Carter.

How'd that one work out?

Actually more power than Carter -- he'll have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. The last time we gave a Democratic president this much power, he tried to change the number of justices on the SCOTUS to stack it in his favor.

At the end of Stevens' dissent there's a real howler--coming from a man who signed onto interjecting federal courts into the foreign policy arena in the detainee case--the decision "will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy than was envisioned at any time in the 18th 19th or 20th centuries." Amazing.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Yes, FDR was entirely within his rights when he attempted to take over another branch of government. I'm sure he was.

And I'm sure that Premier Obama will be entirely within his rights (as defined by SCOTUS, after he appoints a couple of justices) when he begins his three-step plan of confiscation of illegal weapons, internment, and re-education.

Obama's statement is classic Obama. He states that he supports the individual right to own a gun, but then says he thinks cities should be able to ban guns to "keep our streets safe." Once again, his statement is centrist, but the policy he supports to back up the statement is leftist. This kind of contradiction is classic Communist propaganda.

My only point was quite limited and in response to Simon's rolling his eyes. ("I rolled my eyes little when SCOTUSblog ran an approve/disapprove poll of Heller just now when no one has read the opinion or knows anything about it except who wrote what and which way it came out.")

All people knew was who authored the opinion and which way the decision went. Yet, they were ready to say whether they agreed with the decision. After all they liked (or disliked) the result and liked (or disliked) the author so they knew enough.

I disagree: law is hard, not in concept, but in application. In trying to write rules for the ordering of society, you're constantly butting up against the limitations of human language (e.g. ambiguities), the Law of Unintended Consequences, etc. That's one reason I'm an almost-libertarian: fewer, more general, better-understood laws are much better than multiplying things to try to cover every eventuality.

pastafarian -- your vision of the future is entirely consistent with the path that the present Imperial Presidency has started down. The Republican Legislature from 2001 to 2007 only said "How high?" when President Bush said Jump. A horrible abrogation of their duty to check things.

If the Republican Congress had shown a little spine, it could have guaranteed Republican majorities for a good long time.

...and similarly, I'll say that if President Obama governs well, Republicans will have earned a deserved spot as a minority party for a long time.

I don't think he will govern well enough for that to happen, but it's a possibility. He just has to ignore the more extreme elements of the Democratic Party. Bush did not ignore the more extreme elements of the Republican Party and look where it got them.

Why is the reservation of a civil right to thugs, the government, and the elite (the Sulzbergers, Andrew Cuomo, Feinstein) considered to be a "liberal" point of view? Whatever happened to power to the people right on?

Obama's view of the world is the same as the four liberal Justices. They seem to believe that the government is the source of our rights. I always thought the people had inherent rights that the government was established to protect. Certainly, the right to self defense is one of those inherent rights.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

This is code for passing laws to ban guns within 2 miles of any school, essentially encompassing every home in DC.

I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment. But hunting should be made illegal everywhere. Ok goofballs where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to kill Bambi? It doesn't. So the day will come when you will be sentenced to death for raping and killing Bambi. I'll be the 1st to 2nd that amendment.

I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment. But hunting should be made illegal everywhere. Ok goofballs where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to kill Bambi? It doesn't. So the day will come when you will be sentenced to death for raping and killing Bambi. I'll be the 1st to 2nd that amendment.

Don't appear to live around many Bambis. When uncontrolled by predators, whether human or otherwise, they breed like crazy and eat anything that is not well protected. In short, vermin.

You know, I might actually vote for a Democrat someday, who can talk about gun ownership in the context of self defense rather than this constant blather about hunting and sportsmanship.

I just hit the high points of the decision today, but from what I could tell, it was all about self-defense, not hunting. Obama's remarks indicate he's okay with the country boy out in the woods bringing home a deer, but he still thinks single mothers going home from their jobs at 3 am should be disarmed "for the safety of the children".

Julia Child's method for making the perfect hard-cooked egg really works wonderfully:

1. Lay the eggs in a high (not wide) saucepan with cover and add 3 1/2 quarts of cold water (water should cover the eggs by 1 inch). Set over high heat and bring just to the boil; remove from heat, cover the pan, and let sit exactly 17 minutes.

2. Transfer the eggs to a bowl with ice cubes & water large enough to completely cover the eggs. Chill for 2 minutes while bringing the cooking water to the boil again.

3. Transfer the eggs to the boiling water, bring to the boil again, and let boil for 10 seconds.

4. Remove eggs, and place back into the ice water. Chilling the eggs promptly after each step prevents that dark line from forming, and if time allows, leave the eggs in the ice water after the last step for 15 to 20 minutes. Chilled eggs are easier to peel, as well. The peeled eggs will keep perfectly in the refrigerator, submerged in water in an uncovered container, for 2 to 3 days.

I've heard the vermin argument before. Any animal that you don't like is vermin. If the squirrels eat the fruit off "your" trees, they're vermin. Most humans actively destroy the planet and leave it a worse place for the next generation. Humans are the problem, and the vermin.

Trumpit: you clearly don't understand the notion expressed in the 9th amendment of unenumerated rights. The constitution also does not give you the right to laugh, sing or dance, or have sex, or say dumb things on blogs-those, along with hunting, are examples of unenumerated rights. Merely because rights are listed doesnt mean than you are deprived of all other rights.

I feel the way about guns and gun control the same way I do about abortions and drugs. I don't agree with using or having any of them. But because people are going to use/have them no matter what the law says, we should legalize and regulate them in such a way that minimizes the dangerous and/or harmful effects.

You want to have a gun in your house, fine. When/if it accidentally goes off in your toddler's face, hey, oh well. You want to kill your unborn baby because you're too irresponsible to raise a child? Have at it, you get to live with the guilt. And you want to do a bunch of coke and end up dying at 28 years old from a heart attack...well, that's your choice.

I avoid all this crap and don't associate with people who do and I'm fine.

I disagree: law is hard, not in concept, but in application. In trying to write rules for the ordering of society, you're constantly butting up against the limitations of human language (e.g. ambiguities), the Law of Unintended Consequences, etc. That's one reason I'm an almost-libertarian: fewer, more general, better-understood laws are much better than multiplying things to try to cover every eventuality.

I agree that law can be hard - although from my personal and professional experience with a great many attorneys, some of who are real morons, yet still successful - it can't be THAT hard. Still my point is that it has been made harder by attorneys themselves. Which, I think is very much in line with your last comment, " . . . fewer, more general, better-understood laws are much better than multiplying things to try to cover every eventuality.

I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment. But hunting should be made illegal everywhere. Ok goofballs where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to kill Bambi? It doesn't. So the day will come when you will be sentenced to death for raping and killing Bambi. I'll be the 1st to 2nd that amendment.

I haven't been hunting in years, but moronic comments like this make me want to grab my rifle and shoot me a bambi. In fact I think I will shoot two in honor of trumpit.

There was a deer in the Pacific Ocean yesterday, just a few miles north up the coast from me. Lifeguards eventually got it out but it had to be put down due to undisclosed injuries it sustained before it (somehow) made its way into the ocean.

One you bastards shot it, didn't you!

I'm so hungry for lunch, but if I go now then the highlight of my day will be over and I'll have to return to my desk and actually "work,' which I'm not doing now, so...

I feel the way about guns and gun control the same way I do about abortions and drugs. I don't agree with using or having any of them. But because people are going to use/have them no matter what the law says, we should legalize and regulate them in such a way that minimizes the dangerous and/or harmful effects.

Very interesting commentary. So since people kill other people every day anyways, maybe we should legalize that. There are thousands of child molestations everyday. Why not legalize that? So do you believe that an unborn child, say 24 months along, has no rights? How about 20 months, or 30 months or 38 months?

We have an inherent right to defend ourselves. We are born with that right. We do not however, have a god given right to buy drugs or to terminate an unborn child.

I guess I could use a speed loader with my revolver :-) Pulling back the hammer each time is a bridge too far. If semi-autos are banned, and I have an arthritic thumb, can I sue under the ADA that my fundamental 2nd A right is being infringed upon?

Oh shut up Irrelevant! Nobody cares what utter bullshit you think. You NEVER add anything to the argument. You are a predictable homophobe. You and Methadras are the evil twins of hate around here. And Pogo can stick it!

I guess I could use a speed loader with my revolver :-) Pulling back the hammer each time is a bridge too far. If semi-autos are banned, and I have an arthritic thumb, can I sue under the ADA that my fundamental 2nd A right is being infringed upon?

You're an attorney, Blue, you know darn well you can sue for anything. :)

We have an inherent right to defend ourselves. We are born with that right. We do not however, have a god given right to buy drugs

So if the government wanted to, it could forbid a cancer patient from undergoing chemotherapy... without violating any of his natural rights? After all, he's got no right to buy drugs, and that's what chemotherapy involves.

So do you believe that an unborn child, say 24 months along, has no rights? How about 20 months, or 30 months or 38 months?

If you've been carrying an unborn child for 38 months, you've got bigger problems to worry about than whether or not that unborn child has any rights.

We have an inherent right to defend ourselves. We are born with that right. We do not however, have a god given right to buy drugs or to terminate an unborn child.

Why are you so afraid? You have repeated that you have a "right" to defend yourself and I agree with you, but your language is bizarre. I wouldn't call self-defense a "right." It's instinct and natural human behavior much more than it is a "right." But whatever.

If you want to go with the whole "god given" thing, I'd argue that the only thing "god" did give us was free will. And with free will, you can buy as much smack and flush as many fetuses as your heart desires.

Deer are not vermin.. they are venison and very delicious. Especially the ones that have been eating the apples in my orchard.

That presupposes that you can legally take the pre-venisons (my family hates it when I call them that) and turn them into the venison dish you suggested.

There are many places where hunting is disallowed, and that is where they are the greatest nuisance.

My father lives on one side of I-70 west of Denver up in the mountains. Hunting there is illegal year round, and the deer eat everything not heavily protected, and then dart out in front of your car at the most unfortunate times. I used to live at about the same altitude on the other side of I-70, where we still had natural predators (cats and bears) and hunting was legal, and it was rare to see them.

The problem is that we have killed off most of the natural predators, and hunting is often illegal near large cities. The result is a lot more deer than when the white men arrived.

MM said: Why are you assuming that the more extreme elements of the Republican Party I refer to are conservative?

Fair enough, but then I guess you'll have to be more specific about what you mean. If, by extreme, you mean "spending like a drunken sailor and not drilling for more oil?" you and I (and Sloan) are all in agreement.

So if the government wanted to, it could forbid a cancer patient from undergoing chemotherapy... without violating any of his natural rights? After all, he's got no right to buy drugs, and that's what chemotherapy involves.

You have a good point. Certainly no one has the natural right to another person's labor (except perhaps a child has the natural right to his/her parents labor). However, if you have a drug you should have the right to ingest it to your own peril.

A lot of legal firepower was expended in a case that, in the end, turned on the ordinary and usual meaning of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." After the (endless) parsing of lots of historical material, the conclusion was that those words were not some kind of magic code, but instead meant what, to anyone fluent in English, they have always meant (in 1789 no less than today, because the meaning of those words hasn't changed).

Quite apart from the merits, it was interesting to see that the majority cited and relied on at least three articles by Eugene Volokh and one by Randy Barnett. The team at Volokh Conspiracy has been very active on this issue for a while, and laid a lot of the groundwork for the decision. This is one of the rare SCOTUS decisions where academic writing by lawprofs was critical. Kudos to the Volokh guys.

To be more specific, I was thinking of neocons, who IMO are anything but conservative, but they are a vocal minority (who wrongly thinks they are right) within the Republican party. That's one group Bush has listened too closely to. Result: A mess that no one likes.

Then there are those Republicans who, faced with unlimited power, spent with no limits. Well, everyone agrees about them.

Had Bush pushed through spending cuts and government cutbacks, he would have cemented Republican control until you and sloan were sick of it!

There was nothing particularly "neoconservative" about the invasion of Iraq. What made the neos different was their support for establishing a democracy in Iraq. The normal American, non-"neo" action would have been to simply topple the Hussein regime and coerce whatever replaced it into working for us.

Where Bush went astray wasn't in listening to "extremists" who wanted Hussein removed, but in listening to people who wanted democracy. Had we simply crushed Hussein and gone home... well, we wouldn't be as safe, and the Iraqis would be a lot worse off, but Bush would be a lot more popular.

Sloanasaurus said: Once again, his statement is centrist, but the policy he supports to back up the statement is leftist. This kind of contradiction is classic Communist propaganda.

Yes. And its effectiveness depends upon the gullibility of an ignorant electorate. We'll find out how many of those reside in the US, and manage to bumble into a voting site and drool on the D candidate choice, come election time.

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to dem-ean all the Dems here. No. Come to think of it, yes I did. We have you to thank for a long line of sorry, ineffectual leftist presidential candidates. Obama just illustrates the consistency, and that's being nice. Actually, I think things are getting worse over there.

We have you to thank for a long line of sorry, ineffectual leftist presidential candidates.

No really, don't thank us, thank yourself. It takes one side of polarizing candidates to motivate another side. Maybe if the Republican administration hadn't inspired such vitriol on the left (the way Clinton inspired it on the right), we wouldn't see people like Kucinich coming in, uhh, 9th place?, in the primaries.

What do you care about "sorry, ineffectual" candidates, anyway? They're just candidates, not nominees or winners.

depends upon the gullibility of an ignorant electorate.

I presume that means you didn't vote for Bush both times. If you did...well...

"I support putting violent criminals behind bars, but we have too many violent criminals behind bars right now."

This is the most unitelligent and illogical statement ever made. Point, there is no such thing as to many violent criminals behind bars. There is also no such thing as too many criminals of any ilk behind bars. Prisons are where crinimals belong. We need to build more. Who really cares how many people who prey upon others are warehoused?

So, no god-given right to get high, but yes, god-given right to self-defense. What about the god-instructed requirement to turn the other cheek? God is so confusing.

First of all that instruction was given by Jesus, which means there are at least a few people in the world (Jews, for example) who believe in God but don't consider that instruction to have come from him.

Secondly, the "turn the other cheek" statement was about not seeking vengeance for wrongs done to you -- something which was, and is, a problem in that part of the world. It was not a command for people to allow themselves to be killed rather than fight back.

"You truly are one inhumane form a sub-species that resides in a cesspool of pure evil."

Takes one to know one. How's your emphysema doing lately, Low Class Guy. Poorly, I hope and imagine. Please think of me when you inhale. I like cigarettes; they kill bad, worthless people and make the stockholders of RJ Reynolds richer. It's so generous of you to donate your life so that tobacco farmers may prosper. How patriotic. Just don't donate your contaminated organs; no one wants your diseased, black lungs.

This is so wrong. The Second Amendment was only intended to apply to militias. The Founders were afraid Congress would make it illegal for the militia to bear arms, so they would have to fight the Indians with karate. The Founders wisely devised the Second Amendment to prevent this.

To me the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a gun for the necessity of a well regulated militia. I get that idea from actually READING the amendment. Therefore keep your gun for the purpose of protecting your community and property, as a militia would, but expect the ownership to be somewhat regulated.

Ron, just READING something is of no value if you lack comprehension of what you just read, or are unable to understand historical context, natural rights in your word-parsing of the subordinate Militia sentence fragment.

1. You do not understand the language patterns and how colonials would make a conditional, subordinate clauseprior to getting to the primary point or right in the same sentence.

2. You are unaware that the right to keep and bear arms was a right granted all Englishmen in the 1688 "Glorious Revolution". The idea we fought a revolution for liberty and freedom then used a "bill of rights for individuals to take away one freedom while awarding or codifying all other natural liberties is preposterous. The discussions at the time the Cosnstitution was drafted never mentioned taking away the right guaranteed after the English Civil war for proection against brigands, the resurgence of followers of CharlesII, and restoring the protection of private property.

3. You also lack the historical perspective that people were free to have firearms to hunt for food, for protection against criminals and low-intensity Indian Warfare, and also as no cops existed then - to form the constabulatory of armed volunteers of the comminity who would arrest and guard criminals by use of firearms. You absurdly say the right to hunt and self-defense and to enforce law as private citizens wouldn't have existed without a 4th reason for gun ownership, a discretionary membership in a militia legitimizing the others.

4. Women were not members of any militia. Is it your point that since they were not militia, nor could be members - they had no right to own or use a firearm for sport, self-defense, hunting, or protecting the crops, kids, and livestock against wild animals??????

5. You make another non-sequitor out of the subordinate clause by noting that since militias must ne "well regulated" then by your logic, all things that are needed to make a militia must similarly be "well-regulated" by government employees.You limit yourself to only firearms would be regulated as government employees felt they should be..but militia cloths, horses, food, schooling, the taxes supporting the militia, and the lives of all volunteer militia members would be similarly controlled and regulated by power-thirsty local hack potentiates if your logic was correct.

As not only guns, but also food and horse regulation and a variant of the UCMJ restricting and "well-regulating" citizens rights that must be given up by individuals to serve a military well - lets assume your theory that government can strip rights and intrude and regulate any part of military resources and preps, not just firearms owners - is nonsense.

This is so wrong. The Second Amendment was only intended to apply to militias. The Founders were afraid Congress would make it illegal for the militia to bear arms, so they would have to fight the Indians with karate. The Founders wisely devised the Second Amendment to prevent this.

As you are probably aware, this had been and become again a minority position prior to today, and regardless of your personal beliefs, is now officially wrong.

ZPS said:What do you care about "sorry, ineffectual" candidates, anyway? They're just candidates, not nominees or winners.

Can you spell C A R T E R? How about C L I N T O N? See, the problem is that sorry, ineffectual candidates sometimes get elected and someone else has to come along after and clean up the piddle they left on the floor. Not that I think Bush is a great president, but at least he is out of adolescence, something that cannot be said for Obama. And millions of drooling imbeciles will vote for him. That is really sad.

I would very much like to see both parties put forward viable candidates and give us all a choice of something other than "Bad or Worse". And as for vitriol: It's a way of life for angry little boys and girls on the Left. They just need a cause, or a target, or a lame excuse. Pretty much anything will do, and facts won't sway them. Righteous anger is too much fun.

The internet is big enough that any statement you'd care to make probably has at least one true believer. So whenever a person encounters an absurd statement online, the question must be asked: is this sarcasm? Or is it genuine stupidity?

The thing about sarcasm, and its various cousins, is that its wonderful power resided first and foremost as against ... the (another) predominant from of expression.

Now that "snark"--the generic description of all those forms (and make no mistake, the fact that one can now, these days, lump those forms together in one recognizable generic term is significant) has taken over, where is the "as against"?

Snark has become the "predominant" form of expression. It IS the "establishment," so to speak. It now has the power of being pervasive and ubiquitous--the mainstream, to put it another way. But there's a price to be paid for that: It's no longer startling, and individual expressions of it no longer stand out.

It's no longer an "as against," because it's become the standard, the assumed, the base line. In other words, the "establishment."

Blake: Assuming that's not a generic statement, but rather a reference to a recent exchange, note that I actually bothered to ask for clarification[s]. I also read the answer, which was reasonable, and therefore chose to leave it at that. I do not require agreement in order to reach that conclusion.